I understand that there are some themes in the Marvel Universe that can be taken as better than those in the DC Universe. However, I have recently made the decision on which I believe is better: DC. And I will be debating with you on why DC is the better comic book company. First of all, DC is more classic and has the most recognizable heroes. For example, if you asked a random person on the street to name a superhero, they're probably gonna name, "Superman" or "Batman". But, being classic does not automaticalluy assume you as the better of two great companies. You have to look at different things, such as movies, games, comics, tv shows, and other things released in their franchise.
Let's first look at DC's two recent movie's reviews (Taken from www.rottentomatoes.com)
Man of Steel: 56% positive ratings from critics, and 79% positive ratings from normal people.
TDKR: 87% positive ratings from critics, 92% positive ratings from normal people.
And here are Marvel's two recent movie's reviews:
Iron Man 3: 78% positive ratings from critics, 83% positive ratings from normal people.
TASM: 73% positive ratings from cristics, 81% positive ratings from normal people.
So, according to the reviews, TDKR alone did better than Iron Man 3 and TASM. Though Iron Man 3 and TASM both did better than Man of Steel. However, MOS's normal people rating is higher than both Iron Man 3 and TASM's critic ratings.

Alright: Now onto games. DC's most recent game is Injustice: Gods Among Us. Marvel's most recent game is Deadpool. These reviews are taken from www.GameSpot.com:
Injustice: Gods Among Us: 7.0/10 Deadpool: 5.5/10
Second most recent games:
Lego Batman 2: 6.5/10 Avengers: BFE: 7.3/10 (from a dif. website)
Finally, third most recent:
Gotham City Impostors: 7.5/10 TASM: 7.3/10 (user rating, there is no official)

As you can see, DC won in round 1 of video games, Marvel won in round 2, and DC won in round 3. Leaving a total of DC's win margin of 2:1, DC has won the video game category, at least for now.

Next round, there will be more on movies, games, tv shows, heroes, villains, comics, whatever. The Patriot awaits your rebuttal, and have a happy fourth!

My opponent has forfeited. I find this saddening, because I fear he will do the same for the next rounds. Come on Duncan, you can do it. Don't enter a debate prepared to argue and then chicken out. However, Duncan has allowed me to state more on this issue without contradicting or restating his ideas, for he did not have any. For this rebuttal, I will first mention TV shows. On Marvel's side, I will give them: Mutant X, Iron Man (90s), Wolverine & the X-Men, The Avengers: Earth's Mightiest Heroes, and The Spectacular Spider-Man. On DC's side, I will give them: Smallville, Batman: TAS, Superman: TAS, Green Lantern: TAS, and the Justice League.(With these shows, I'm trying to be as fair as possible) Let's see the reviews of Marvel's shows (taken from IMDB):
Mutant X: 5.7/10 Iron Man: 6.7/10
Wolverine & The X-Men: 7.8/10 The Avengers: EMH: 7.9/10
The Spectacular Spider-Man: 7.6/10

Now, let's do what I call the Patriot method (Eh, get it?) I add together the review points that were out of ten from each company, and then which ever company has the larger total wins the round. So, for Marvel we shall add:

I apologize for missing the previous round, as I was at ArcadeCon in Dublin and forgot. The instigator has used admirable statistics in the 2 previous rounds to prove that DC is commercially well known. However, ratings alone cannot guarantee the popularity or a franchise. In fact, Star Trek Into Darkness received averages of 8, 9 and 10, although these were made using false accounts, due to the staff who made the game hoping to buff its score. This is a problem that spans every game review, so these ratings alone cannot prove quality. Now that I'm done defending, I will now attack.

Characters are an integral part of both Marvel and DC. Superman is well known and dates back to the 1940s which means that many will recognize him, outright. The same situation goes with Nintendo and Sega, in the way that the older company is more successful. I hardly think you'd want to use the age of DC as reason for superiority unless you want to bring up the slap a Jap slogan Superman made or the time the Justice League wouldn't let Wonder Woman go on missions and made her Secretary. But I digress. The Justice League is less interesting characterwise due to the flaws in the characters present. Superman is an overpowered figure in DC, as his only weakness is fragments of a destroyed planet, and he gains new powers such as time travel and laser eyes when it suits him. Batman is suitably a contrast- underpowered but quick witted, but his moral system or thou shalt not kill is often inconsistent with many fatal moves on henchmen overlooked. I could go on with the dullness of the remaining characters, but the only characters of interest in the DC series are Joker and Riddler, as they offer a more psychological story than plotless action. Marvel characters have a little more depth, specifically with the changing background and relation of each character now that Asgarde has become industrialised under a capricious Odin, facing off against the Iron Patriot, Norman Osbourne (get it right Hollywood!)

In this regard, the story is much more colourful in Marvel than in DC, due to the new gritty version of DC appearing (which will lead inevitably to a dominatrix Wonder Woman). For the reason of appealing rather than nostalgiac characters, I put forward my argument and await response. (I will try to reply faster next time as well.)

Nice to hear from you again, Duncan. I was not arguing that DC was commercially well-known. I was arguing that DC was more well-liked in certain franchises, and in a way, did better with their franchises than Marvel has. What does Star Trek have to do with this? Star Trek is neither Marvel nor DC. It is based off an old TV program. The ratings are not trying to prove actual quality, but they are proving quality in the eyes of the players, viewers, etc. Thus, making a legtimate reason as to part of why DC is better, for there are some aspects in which DC is enjoyed more of the media followers.

DC was established in 1934 as National Allied Publications. Marvel was established in 1939 as Timely Comics. The distance between these two is only a matter of five years, so that should not differ with either of their qualities. Believe me, I agree with you on the Nintendo and Sega thing. Nintendo was formed in 1889 (Believe it or not), and Sega in 1940. This leaves a 51 year gap, and it is commonly agreed that Nintendo is the better of the two.

Superman is in no way what you state him as. Superman only has his powers when the sun is on him (at least I think). Besides Kryptonite, Superman's weaknesses are also as follows: Magical and Psionic effects, 30+ different kinds of Kryptonite, each with different negative effects, Wonder Woman's lasso of truth and tiarra, and some other kind of stone. As you can see, Superman has a variety of weaknesses, while many of Marvel's characters are way overpowered (Galactus, Hulk, Sentry, Silver Surfer, Thor, etc.). Batman's no-killing policy is more deeply expressed in the movies, because Batman has killed some people in the comics. Such as in the original, old comics, when for example, he hanged a criminal from the batplane and regularly carried and used guns. Batman has also locked a villain underground to let them starve to death, and he also let theives burn to death. And there was also one case (in Batman: TDKR) in which Batman snapped the Joker's neck.

With DC's villains, you can get a better sense of horror and sometimes, a better sense of reality. Some of DC's horror villains are mainly Batman adversaries such as The Joker, Professor Pyg, Mr.Zsasz, and Ted Krosby. Ted especially. That guy gives me the chills. In what way do Marvel's characters have more depth? DC publishes Secret Origin books, and whole comic series that reflect on the selected character's origins (such as The Killing Joke).

And what's so bad about becoming grittier? A lot of people enjoy that. Plus, Marvel is full of that with characters such as Blade, Punisher, Venom, Ghost Rider, and many more.

Not the Riddler anymore? Regardless, my point is that the commercial ratings received for a film or game do not determine its true popularity. The quality of a film or game boils down to the developers making it, not the brand behind it. Your statistics prove that Rocksteady studios is better than high moon studios but does not prove Batman or Deadpool's cases.

This is why the characters must be the deciding factor, and so I will bring up the overpowered nature of the heroes again. True, L. L. (Lex, not Lana, Lois or Lightning lad, seriously?) may find the occasional shard, and wonder woman's whip may harm him, but Batman states in Injustice that they only can stop Superman because he goes easy on them; if he wanted to kill Wonder Woman, he would zip over faster than the Flash and just break her neck instantly. On the topic of Wonder Woman, she still upholds stereotypes of women from the 1960s today. Think I'm wrong? What about the time fans complained when she put on a jacket in one series? How about that she loses her powers if a man ties her up (ie; not a woman)? The flash seems to move at speeds that would set him on fire and so forth. Batman and his rivals are the strong point of DC because they are so much more believable. Marvel may be rather unrealistic, but their characters are not overpowered, and the lack of grittiness allows this supernaturality. DC is now on the gritty path (one could say Dark Knight started it), and you can argue that grittiness is not a fault. However, the Justice League is 9/10ths supernatural, something that realistic grittiness cannot allow. This is why the gritty reboot will not work for the Justice League, they're just too ridiculous to handle as cold, dark anti-heroes. Marvel offers brighter tones in variations or darkness, and dynamically changes throughout the story. For this reason, I still support Marvel in this debate.

Heh. About the Riddler, are you talking about my profile pic? Well, I'm a huge fan of him, but it's the same with Two-Face. So I made it Two-Face. Anyways, I am not talking about popularity here. I am talking about which was more liked amongst critics and average movie-goers or whatever, and DC has the overall higher ranking in the categories. The quality of a game does NOT boil down to the developers making, and I agree, it does not boil down to the brand. The goodness of a game boils to down to how it is made, the graphics, storyline, and characters. This is done by the developers, but the developers are not the decision point on the quality. Their performance and direction and instruction of the game is. My statistics are not saying anything about the developers nor the companies. What they are showing you are the GAME'S overall ratings and reviews among the people that play them. My statitistics do not lean one brand over the over, they lean one brand's GAME over the other. Is it that hard to understand?

Now, we move on. How can you question Superman's weaknesses and abilities over certain characters from a video game? Video games always get things wrong, just like Hollywood. And here you are, continuing to mock heroes. What about Quicksilver? He can do exactly the same as Flash. Marvel has many overpowered characters, as I have mentioned in my last rebuttal. And also as I mentioned my last rebuttal, Marvel's heroes have PLENTY grittiness. Think about Blade, The Punisher, Venom, Ghost Rider, Daredevil, too many to name! Maybe DC doesn't want the Justice League to be gritty. Maybe they want it to be normal. And considering even your idea, you should even be happy if they don't do that. DC is fully capable of making things less gritty. For example, give Batman a normal voice and Superman his classy sense of humor from the comics. Give Green Arrow back his sense of humor, too, and give him back his beard. All Hollywood would have to do is that, and they would be able to pull it off greatly. You seem to agree with that, because you said, and I quote, "However, the Justice League is 9/10ths supernatural, something that realistic grittiness cannot allow." As I said, it's simple. We kill the grittiness. Finally, Marvel has a lot of gritty films, also. Just for example, there is Blade, Blade II, Blade III, all three punishers, both ghost riders, and an argument could be made for Spider-Man 3.

My final statement against marvel is that, in a way, they have copied off of DC's characters. Let's look at Batman and Iron Man. Batman is a billionaire, genius, playboy and philantrophist that has to manage his parents' company after they are violently killed (murdered). Bruce Wayne, the man who inherits the business, plans to avenge his parents' death by dressing in a fancy suit to stop the crime, and eventually saves the girl (Rachel Dawes) from the villain. (Scarecrow)

As with Iron Man: Tony Stark is a billionaire, genius, playboy and philantrophist that has to manage his parents' company after they are violently killed (car accident). Tony Stark, the man who inherits the business, plans to continue his parents dreams for the world by dressing in a fancy suit to stop the crime, and eventually saves the girl (Pepper Potts) from the villain (Iron Monger).

As to proof that Batman came first, he first appeared in Detective Comics #27 in 1939, and Iron Man first appeared in Tales of Suspense #39 in 1963. Both of these facts were provided by Wikipedia. And another instance of Marvel copying DC, just look at Nova with Green Lantern, and Deadpool with Deathstroke. Nova has a Nova Corps (just like GL) and practically has GL's powers. Nova first appeared in 1976, and GL first appeared in 1940.

Now, with Deadpool and Deathstroke, they are practically the same guy. Both men who are trained mercenaries who will kill anyone for the money. Deadpool first appeared in 1991, and Deathstroke first appeared in 1980. Plus, Deathstroke's name is Slade Wilson. Deadpool's real name is Wade Wilson. Are you kidding me, Marvel. Honestly? What the heck!

Ah, I now understand that you did mean superiority in terms of ratings. While I am now confused as to why 5 rounds were required for the statistics, but still I argue that it is the quality of the developers' work that determines the rating. I have greatly enjoyed Arkham City for its free roaming, gadgets (ratchet and clank fan, you see) and melee combat with fluid motion. In contrast, the Iron Man games have been failures for poor flight controls, graphical errors, and lack of contrasts between Tony and Rhody's stories. Marvel had no part in this error, and for Deadpool;

1; Deadpool's game was a low effort hack n' slash partially redeemed for the ridiculous story and jokes.

2; Deadpool is a parody of all other super heroes. Nothing he does can be taken seriously because he is the comic relief of the entire brand. Of course he is made of references to other comics and games.

Now, Stark and Bruce have similarities, but Stark is not fueled by the deaths of his parents, rather by his discovery of the horror of war. Stark cannot avenge his parents' deaths unless he plans to destroy all cars anyway. Also, Stark never had a fear of iron. True, there are similarities, but then you could say they all copy each other by living in Manhattan.

Nova leads a team true, but then so does Hannibal, in the A-Team. The characteristics you call copying is just a plot recipe that is commonly used, such as boy-meets-girl, or revenge-story. These are not direct plaguarism, and rather are just story nets that audiences will always approve of. His powers are not based on imagination using a ring, instead focusing on superhuman attributes such as strength, speed and flight. Do not try and tell me that Superman has copyright on flight, strength and speed.

Finally, onto grittiness. True, DC can always ditch grittiness if they want, but then again, they haven't. Arkham Asylum did have some mutants and odd powers in it, but it still went for the almost purely grey colour scheme, only changing for specific villian lairs. (penguin and poison ivy dlc) And to avoid my own hole, yes, I know that is the choice of rocksteady, but the comics have been just as dark. Certain Marvel characters do have a gritty style, because Blade is a freaking vampire who would lose his powers in sunlight. The same goes for Ghost Rider; his powers activate at night, and by day he gets Nick Cage powers. Also, I will be the first to say the Punisher films were terrible, (But so were superman 1-4) The pattern was followed in the Man of Steel, and this suggests the following films will have the same grittiness, which will be odd for regulars like Martian Manhunter and Wonder Woman. This is why grittiness will only work for the caped crusader and no one else. I wait your response.

Hello there PatriotPerson, I am a firm believer in the superiority of Marvel Comics and will happily accept this challenge if you wish it. I am not too familiar with the DC comics universe compared to the Marvel, however I will happily argue that it, and the DC movies do not compare to the Marvel movies, comics and characters. If I can accept the challenge simply post it in these comments and I will accept it asap.

Reasons for voting decision: Conduct Pro because of Cons FF Round 2. I would have liked it more if the debate had expanded to include actual sales figures, and current trends like digital comics. Given the nature of the debate I view BOP as shared, and that nether side really proved their position. It was interesting, but next time you may want to narrow down to smaller arguments given Marvel and DC are huge. Like Justice League vs Avengers that way you're encouraged to make more concise points that maybe easier to prove.

You are not eligible to vote on this debate

This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.